Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Please remember that the person requesting that Zimmerman stay in his car had no authority to do so.

If you've repeatedly been let down by LE why would you not do the job you've volunteered to do?

Yup. What you say is true and I agree. Still, a very good and concise tagline that will likely resonate with some of the jurors.

[RedskinRat]

Prosecution - "This is not about race"....but Trayvon and his friend sure as **** don't like creepy-assed crackers.

**** sake!

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yup. What you say is true and I agree. Still, a very good and concise tagline that will likely resonate with some of the jurors.

Yeah, and what gets me is like you and RR say: No, legally it's not about staying in your car at all. Where did we get to the point where getting out of your car means you deserve to be beaten up? I'm not saying Martin attacked Zimmerman for that, but that's exactly what some people here have said they would do, and that's totally wrong and they should go to jail themselves if they actually do attack someone under those circumstances.

To hear a prosecutor talk along those lines was unbelievable to me. "Is that all they have at that point?", I was thinking.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yup. What you say is true and I agree. Still, a very good and concise tagline that will likely resonate with some of the jurors.

Not sure if you caught the TV coverage last night but (I think) CNN had their quasi-jury and they were clearly split along racial lines. Some of the personal comments were utterly ridiculous.

My concern is that the jurors are mouth-breathers, I hope not.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Prosecution - "This is not about race"....but Trayvon and his friend sure as **** don't like creepy-assed crackers.

**** sake!

*sigh*

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yup. What you say is true and I agree. Still, a very good and concise tagline that will likely resonate with some of the jurors.

They may not but it shows Zimmerman getting reasonableness in real-time. Not to mention the community's neighborhood watch protocol.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

*sigh*

Asthma? You should get an inhaler.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[JoeRedskin]

To me, as always, it depends on how seriously the jury takes the presumption of innocence charge. If every fact for which there is not direct or immediate circumstantial evidence is presumed to be in GZ's favor or presumed unproven, I just don't see how a jury could convict.

On the other hand, they don't do so, and allow certain prosecutorial assumptions to stand (key being that (1) TM was either in imminent fear of physical harm before attacking GZ or (2) that TZ initiated the fight plus a host of assumptions relating to the self-defense issue). Then they may very well let it stand.


** When I say "immediate circumstantial evidence", I mean:
(1) "In a forest filled with deer, I saw deer tracks on a path. At the end of the tracks, I saw a deer. Although I didn't see it make the tracks, I assume the deer standing at the end of the tracks is the deer who made the tracks leading up to them"; or,
(2) "In an area filled with deer, a field is fully enclosed on the first of the month. At the time of the enclosure, an inspection was done and there is direct evidence that there were no deer in the field when it was enclosed. People have been allowed to place deer in the enclosure but, since its enclosure, a video camera at the sole entrance verifies that only one deer has ever been placed in the field. The enclosure was inspected immediately after I visited it, and it is intact and has never been repaired, Therefore even though I didn't see the tracks being made, I assume that the tracks I saw when I visited the field on the 15th were made by the only deer placed in the field".

As compared to:
(1) "I saw deer tracks leading down a path in the woods then they disappearred but a twenty yards down the path, I saw a deer. I assumed that deer is the one that made the tracks I saw"; or
(2) "A field is fully enclosed on the 1st, no inspection was done, but the owner believes no deer were in the enclosure because he saw none as constructed the enclosure. Although others have access to the field and are permitted to place their deer in the field, he states is the only person to do so and he has placed only one deer in the field since its enclosure. He inspected the enclosure after I visited the field on the 15th and it was intact and had never been repaired. On the day of my visit I saw only one deer. Therefore even though I didn't see the tracks being made, I assume that the tracks I saw when I visited the field on the 15th were made by the deer the owner placed in the field.


The more little holes you fill with assumption and inference, the more and more you risk ignoring the presumption.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

They may not but it shows Zimmerman getting reasonableness in real-time. Not to mention the community's neighborhood watch protocol.

Reasonableness IS NOT the standard for manslaughter. Here is the instruction given:

To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Trayvon Martin is dead.

2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.

George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:

Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.

Emphasis mine.

The assertion that (1) getting out of his car against the instructions of a dispatcher; and (2) in violation of protocols -- is unreasonable is not enough to convict for the crime of manslaughter [although it may be enough in a civil wrongful death tort claim].

Rather, for a conviction you must assume - b/c there is no evidence one way or the other on this - that he had a conscience intent to cause harm. The closest thing to direct evidence on this point is GZ's comment "these **** always get away". For guilt, you must presume from that statement that GZ intended to cause harm. While I agree that is a reasonable assumption, there are three or four other reasonable assumptions which I ran through several pages ago when Chico and discussed this specific point. If you take the presumption of innoncence seriously, you cannot presume the necessary state of mind unless the State proves that it is the only reasonable assumption. (i.e.- the State's evidence eliminates all other reasonable assumptions).

I just don't see that. To me, it takes a lot of assumptions contrary to the presumption of innocence to read what was in GZ's mind that night and to get from a level general frustration to an intention to cause harm. [I mean really, if he had the "conscious intention to harm", why not approach with the gun drawn? If there was evidence of that, whole 'nother story.]

[over the mountain]

whether a dispatcher's instruction is an official order or martin's past history or zimmerman's past dispatch calls, etc are all immaterial imo and you all are getting lost in the sauce to the central issue:

Was zimmerman in actual and reasonable fear for his life?

EMT said zimmerman's injuries werent life threatening.

having injuries that would make you "concerned for your medical safety" doesnt rise to the level of life threatening injuries imo.

you cant shoot someone because you are losing a fist fight.

the prosecutions apparent inability to draw a clear picture and the defense attorney's ability to color outside the lines has made for an unclear picture ....

so i havent seen anything to change my mind that its going to be man 1. but i have been paying attention to this thread about the trial and not the actual trial so my opinion is gut instinct.

[JoeRedskin]

It's death or great bodily harm.

EMT said that a person on their back with GZ's injuries would "probably" be in "fear for their medical safety".

Direct evidence that he was on the ground with Martin on top with "flailing arms", had a blood running down his throat, evidence of his head striking the concrete more than once (certainly no conclusive evidence it ONLY struck once - assumptions go to GZ favor), no visible injuries to TM evidencing even a single blow landed by GZ and GZ screaming for help.

Again, a perfectly reasonable inference - to me - is that he wasn't "losing a fight", he was being given a beat down with reckless abandon with no help in sight. To me, if true, sounds like reasonable fear of great bodily harm.

And to be fair, both sides colored outside the lines.

[JoeRedskin]

Again, I am not saying your interpretation of the key moment is unreasonable OMT. It is certainly one take. Given the evidence and the need for more than one or two, less than airtight inferences (deer standing with tracks leading to it example), however, I think the presumption of innocence is a burden the prosecution just can't overcome beyond a reasonable doubt in this case.

[JoeRedskin]

Also, I absolutely agree with you OMT - at the moment he fired the gun, it is manslaughter if he is not reasonably in fear of his life or great bodily harm.

It is the State (and saden1 and chico and others) saying the initial act of following is what evidences the necessary intent for manslaughter.

[RGIII]

Well I guess we can stop crying over Sean Taylor's death using your twisted (legal) logic. Clearly Sean was killed by the intruders who feared their own lives.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by RGIII

Well I guess we can stop crying over Sean Taylor's death using your twisted (legal) logic. Clearly Sean was killed by the intruders who feared their own lives.

killing someone in the commission of a felony (B&E, home invasion, robbery) is a way different situation. not comparable